Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of rising global rates of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. CRC rates are particularly increasing among younger populations; however, the implementation of effective CRC screening programs remains limited. Colonoscopy, the gold standard CRC screening technique, is restricted by complex procedures, invasive methods, and low patient adherence. Therefore, non-invasive screening through circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood tests is emerging as an effective alternative. Methods: This narrative review summarizes recent advances in cfDNA-based blood tests for colorectal cancer screening and early detection. Relevant English-language publications from 2021 to 2025 were searched on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases, supplemented by examination of reference lists. The study evaluated various diagnostic performance measures [sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (area under the curve)] and compared cfDNA-based approaches with previously established screening methods. Results: CRC detection and diagnostic efficacies of cfDNA-based technologies (mutation analysis, fragmentomics, integrated multi-omics approaches, and methylation profiling) have been reported in several recent studies. Fragmentomics and integrated multi-omics strategies have reported high diagnostic accuracy in a small number of heterogeneous, non-pooled studies. During a large-scale ECLIPSE study, involving an average-risk screening population, the Shield blood-based assay demonstrated 83.1% sensitivity for CRC, whereas the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was only 13.2%. However, lack of assay standardization, low sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions, methodological heterogeneity, and the need for prospective validation before routine clinical implementation remain major limitations. Conclusions: cfDNA-based non-invasive screening tools offer promising colorectal cancer detection accuracy. However, prospective validation, standardization, and optimization of analytical workflows are mandatory for the widespread clinical implementation of these techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhawlani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: